Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Fact

The petitioner, a partnership firm ("the Firm"), initially was running a bar and restaurant in a rented building. In December 2013, the Revenue Department wanted to acquire the building as a part of its metro project. On 10.12.2013, the revenue authorities-according to the petitioner, without notice-seized the building and sealed it, assisted by the police and excise officials. As much stock had been left unused, the Firm represented to the revenue authorities to permit it to exhaust the stock and continue running the business until the authorities actually needed the building for the metro project.

2. The revenue authorities-to be specific, the District Collector-permitted the Firm to re-open the shop. It was with an express condition that the Firm should surrender the building when the authorities required it. On 22.12.2013, it reopened the shop. Later, as the revenue authorities did not insist on the Firm's closing the business, it applied to the Excise Department ("the Department") to have the licence renewed. And it got the licence renewed through Ext.P1, with effect from 01.04.2014. Soon thereafter, on 10.04.2014, the revenue authorities once again seized the building, took it over and, in the course of time, demolished it. The Firm's effort to stall the officials' efforts proved futile, despite its approaching this Court and filing W.P.(C) No. 8549 of 2014. The writ petition was dismissed.

3. On 09.03.2015, the Department, through Ext.P2, officially terminated the Firm's FL-3 licence for 'non-use.' Thereafter, on 21.05.2015, the Firm requested the Department to refund the proportionate licence fee for the unused period. In turn, the Excise Commissioner, the first respondent, rejected the Firm's request. Aggrieved, the Firm has filed this writ petition impugning the Ext.P4 order of rejection.

Submissions:

Petitioner's:

4. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel for the Firm has submitted that the Firm could run the business hardly for a week's time and that thereafter it had to shut up shop because the very building was taken over by the revenue officials. He has further contended that the excise officials have fully known of this: that the Firm's bar was closed and that the Firm could not use the licence.

5. Drawing my attention to the Ext.P2 order of termination and also the counter affidavit filed by the Department, the learned counsel would strenuously contend that the Department ought to have acceded to the Firm's request and refunded the proportionate licence fee. To support his contentions, he has relied on Jayadevan v. Varghese 1999 (1) KLT 351.

Department's:

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader, with equal vehemence, has contended that the Firm initially had its shop reopened only to exhaust the stock. Suppressing that fact, the Firm, argues the learned Government Pleader, requested the Department to renew its licence. Unaware of the developments, the Department renewed the licence.

7. The learned Government Pleader further asserts that, when the Firm wanted to have the licence renewed, it did not, in the first place, appraise the Department of the factual position: the shop was permitted to reopen for a limited purpose. Second, so long as the Department has not prevented the Firm from carrying on its business, according to the learned G.P., the Department cannot be compelled to refund the amount for the fault, if any, on the very licencee's part. So, she urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the Firm and the learned Government Pleader, besides perusing the record.

Issue:

9. The Firm had its FL-3 licence renewed for the excise year 2014-15; it could, however, use the licence only for one week. The shop closed, the Department cancelled the Firm's licence, a year later. One of the licence-conditions stipulates that once the licene cancelled, the licencee may have the licence fee proportionately refunded. Is the Firm entit